Re: interfunctionally integrated versus replaced

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:53:24 -0600

Phil,

I think both to a degree. First, when I say cultural-historical I see it
more as the "system" I am part of and the biological is part of that
system. In development when Vygotsky talked about "revolution" it was not
so much the new was an unfolding but "internal" and in relation to the
system. In this sense, the biological is always there but changes because
of its relationship within the system. He described this in several areas;
language, play, and instruction. In all three the biological is
qualitatively different not because of an unfolding perse, but because of
its relationship to the system.

I also think what we call "natural" or "biological" seems to be very
cultural-historical. This is real strong for me in "developmental"
literature especially the unfolding kind. Jerome Bruner talks about this
as the "dialectics of culture" with early cognitive science and the war on
poverty. He entertains the notion that maybe science leads culture and
decides against this approach. I would never go so far as to say "a result
of", I don't tend to see relationships in that way. I would be more
comfortable with saying there is a dialectic involved and that it is
virtually impossible for us as a species to have access to the biological.

Biology is a very loaded and dangerous term for me. In many ways, like
development, it naturalizes a particular order of things, if its cultural
or structural, that leaves a lot of questions unasked. Even something
like Vygotsky's scientific concepts can be found in our genes, I am being
somewhat sarcastic, but not totally.

Nate

----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Graham <pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: interfunctionally integrated versus replaced

> Nate,
>
> just to clarify:
> At 17:25 29-10-00 -0600, Nate wrote:
> > I don't think it excludes the biological, "I" just don't believe it
exists
> >for us as a species outside of the cultural-historical.
>
> Are you saying that the biological is part of, or a result of,
> cultural-historical?
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Graham
> p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html
>